THE CKINOII) HYPOCRINUS. 897 



of Germany several ci'inoids which I regard as close allies of 

 Ilypocrinus, hut he did not mention that genus for comparison. 

 Haeckel (1896, "Die Amphorideen und Cystoideen," Festschr. 

 f lir Gegenbaur, Bd. i. p. 147) dealt with the genus between Crypto- 

 a-inus and Lichenocystis, but concluded his description by saying : 

 " wegen ihrer sonstigen nahen Beziehungen zu einfachsten 

 Orinoideen konnte man sie audi fiir reduzirte oder verklimmerte 

 Foi^men dieser Klasse ansehen." This statement, while perfectly 

 true as regards Hypocrinus^ is not equally applicable to Crypto- 

 C7-inus. 



Undismayed by this weight of authority, in a " Phylogenetic 

 Classification of the Pelmatozoa " (1899, Rep. Bi-it. Assoc. 1898, 

 p. 923) I placed Gasteroconia, Scoliocrinus, Achradocrimcs, and 

 Hypocrinus in the family Gasterocomidfe, which came in the 

 suborder Oyathocrinoidea, among the Dicyclica Inadunata. 

 This family was maintained, with the addition of Nanocrinus, 

 on pp. 177, 178 of my conti'ibution to Lankester s ' Treatise on 

 Zoology' (Part III. Echinoderma, 1900). 



In the second edition of the ' Grundziige der Palaontologie ' 

 (1903, p. 141) Von Zittel included in the family Gasterocomidte 

 the same genera as I had placed in it. His example was followed 

 by Pocta (1904, ' Rukovet Palaeozoologie,' I.), who, however, 

 quoted Hypocrinus as " permokarbon rusky." 



Delage and Herouard (1904, ' Traite de Zoologie concrete,' 

 Tome iii. pp. 379, 380) reduced my suborder Oyathocrinoidea to 

 the rank of a family Cyathocrinusinge, but retained Hypocrinus 

 and the other genera in the same relative position. 



The latest writer to maintain Hypocrinus in the Oystids under 

 a family CryptocrinidaB appears to be Dr. G. H. Girty (1908, 

 " Guadalupian Fauna," Professional Paper 58, U.S. Geol. Surv. 

 p. 108). This he has done in connection with the description of 

 (Joenocystis richarclso7ii, an alleged new genus and species of this 

 Family, from the Delaware Mountain Formation of uppermost 

 Carboniferous age in Texas. Whatever Coenocystis may be, I 

 find no reason for supposing it to be a Cystid. But even if it 

 were, this would nob affect the position of Hypocrinus, which, as 

 Dr. Girty says, is evidently distinct. 



The pi^eceding account shows that the position now occupied by 

 Hypocrinus in our leading text-books depends chiefly upon the 

 opinions expressed by Herbert Caipenter and myself. It is, 

 therefore, advisable to point out that, when we wrote, neither 

 of us had examined any specimens of Hypocrinus. For us it 

 remained, as Carpenter expressed it, a very singular form which 

 one would like to know more about. At last, the great courtesy 

 and kindness of Professors Dr. W. Branca of the Museum fiir 

 Xaturkunde, Berlin, and Dr. C. E. A. Wichmann of Utrecht 

 University, have enabled me to study all the described specimens 

 of this genus. The following pages contain redescriptions of that 

 material and fresh diagnoses. 



